6 ms·

Australia and Venezuela are the 2 best most recent examples of why the 2nd Amendment is so unique and important.

handrous 5y ago
I'm on the look-out for examples of private firearms preserving liberty and democratic government. Have any? Post-WWI strongly preferred. (serious question)
- eplanit 5y ago
  Both of those countries disarmed their citizens relatively recently -- and now, neither is an example of liberty.
  - handrous 5y ago
    Negative examples don't work too well, since I can point at, say, the US at many points and say "doesn't look like a great example of liberty"—meanwhile, progress toward such doesn't seem to have had much to do with our having lots and lots of private firearms. Meanwhile, there are plenty of relatively "disarmed" countries that remain quite free. So what factor, if any, do private arms play in the preservation of liberty and democracy? That's what I'm trying to get at. We take it as true that the 2nd amendment is absolutely vital to maintaining freedom, but... is there any reason to think that's true? I'm genuinely trying to figure that out.
- linksnapzz 5y ago
  Afghanistan.
  - handrous 5y ago
    Um. > examples of private firearms preserving liberty and democratic government.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      How many times do you have to fight off a foreign power seeking to impose its will on your society before you get a pass for not setting up a democracy when you're done?
      - handrous 5y ago
        OK, so they can be handy, in the hands of a government-in-exile looking to replace a foreign-imposed kleptocracy with a restoration of their own religious authoritarian state. That's granting that we can call enough of what they've got "private arms" for them to be a significant factor in the first place (I truly don't know how that would break down—maybe most of their soldiers really do go out and buy their own guns, before joining the cause). Even so, none of that seems to have much to do with keeping one's own government liberal and democratic, though, which is what I'm interested in.
    - linksnapzz 5y ago
      The taliban are now removing those in the ANA who kept 12-year old boys as unwilling catamites. Perhaps they need US State Dept. functionaries to educate them about the liberal necessity of this practice. Do you think that the late, plausibly democratic, US Gov't supported regime there for the last 20 years was somehow unaware of this problem?
      - handrous 5y ago
        What the fuck? No, I just don't think an exiled authoritarian government overthrowing a foreign-imposed kleptocracy is a great example of private firearms playing a vital role in preserving liberty & democracy, which is what I asked for. Do you?
        linksnapzz 5y ago
        At worst, it's a wash. At best... I'd have to have a better idea about what you mean by "liberty & democracy". For starters, it's not clear that the Taliban have less popular support than the ruling coalitions in many western governments.
- klyrs 5y ago
  I'd look to the Black Panther Party in the 1960s, and ask whether Americans have the same rights today as they did then. Couple of points I find interesting here. (1) As I understand it, open carry is illegal in California and Washington as a direct response to armed BPP demonstrations on capitol buildings. (2) Private enforcement like was carried out by the BPP was echoed in CHAZ/CHOP, and to put it mildly, I've never seen that celebrated by gun rights activists. (3) The BPP and police forces of the time were fairly well matched in their armament. Since then, the police are now paramilitary forces replete with military arms and armor. Are American gun rights activists deluding themselves, that they'd stand a chance if the police and military decided they were gonna run shit? Or are they merely comfortable in the knowledge that the police and military are politically aligned with them?
  - handrous 5y ago
    I do think the history of the Black Panthers is one of the more likely veins to yield gold, in my search, and intend to do some reading there. I'm entirely serious that I could turn around on this position completely, if I found compelling evidence. > (3) Are American gun rights activists deluding themselves, that they'd stand a chance if the police and military decided they were gonna run shit? Or are they merely comfortable in the knowledge that the police and military are politically aligned with them? It's largely the latter, I think, which brings me to: Ultimately, I think the fatal flaw in the argument that private gun ownership is necessary to protect democracy, is in the fact that authoritarian turns by democracies tend to be fairly popular, when they happen, and that the pro-authoritarian citizens, whose position is likely, if not the majority, at least quite popular, will have guns, too... plus the police, and the army (if they don't have those, what's the problem? No private arms needed, authoritarian take-over is done before it can start if the police and the military aren't on its side, or at least damn close to being on its side). It's not just a lack of history of private firearms being an important pro-liberty and pro-democracy force in democratic states (so far as I can see! Again, I'd love examples)—it's that I have trouble imagining scenarios in which they likely would be, while remaining within the realm of the plausible. It's got to be some movement that's unpopular among the military and police, so they don't support it, but popular among enough of the rest of the populace that significant numbers would take up arms, and that almost none of them would be taking up arms in against liberty and democracy, rather than for them... and is that a remotely likely situation? I don't think it is. I think for practically the whole likely problem-space, if you will, private arms are one of 1) superfluous, 2) laughably insufficient, or 3) actively harmful to the very things they're allegedly there to preserve & protect.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  1) Northern Syria (Rojava), during the latest Syrian Civil war. Local militias comprised of inhabitants of Kurdish northern Syria fought ISIS and other splintered forces to maintain the loose democratic confederacy that is Rojava. 2) Slightly worse example: Nationalistic unorganized militia in the Ukraine during the latest war in Crimea and Donbas. 3) US example? Battle of Athens (post WW-II) [1]. When I really start thinking about it, there are almost too many to name; especially if you count the times where there was an attempt but it failed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

I'm on the look-out for examples of private firearms preserving liberty and democratic government. Have any? Post-WWI strongly preferred. (serious question)

eplanit 5y ago
Both of those countries disarmed their citizens relatively recently -- and now, neither is an example of liberty.
- handrous 5y ago
  Negative examples don't work too well, since I can point at, say, the US at many points and say "doesn't look like a great example of liberty"—meanwhile, progress toward such doesn't seem to have had much to do with our having lots and lots of private firearms. Meanwhile, there are plenty of relatively "disarmed" countries that remain quite free. So what factor, if any, do private arms play in the preservation of liberty and democracy? That's what I'm trying to get at. We take it as true that the 2nd amendment is absolutely vital to maintaining freedom, but... is there any reason to think that's true? I'm genuinely trying to figure that out.
linksnapzz 5y ago
Afghanistan.
- handrous 5y ago
  Um. > examples of private firearms preserving liberty and democratic government.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    How many times do you have to fight off a foreign power seeking to impose its will on your society before you get a pass for not setting up a democracy when you're done?
    - handrous 5y ago
      OK, so they can be handy, in the hands of a government-in-exile looking to replace a foreign-imposed kleptocracy with a restoration of their own religious authoritarian state. That's granting that we can call enough of what they've got "private arms" for them to be a significant factor in the first place (I truly don't know how that would break down—maybe most of their soldiers really do go out and buy their own guns, before joining the cause). Even so, none of that seems to have much to do with keeping one's own government liberal and democratic, though, which is what I'm interested in.
  - linksnapzz 5y ago
    The taliban are now removing those in the ANA who kept 12-year old boys as unwilling catamites. Perhaps they need US State Dept. functionaries to educate them about the liberal necessity of this practice. Do you think that the late, plausibly democratic, US Gov't supported regime there for the last 20 years was somehow unaware of this problem?
    - handrous 5y ago
      What the fuck? No, I just don't think an exiled authoritarian government overthrowing a foreign-imposed kleptocracy is a great example of private firearms playing a vital role in preserving liberty & democracy, which is what I asked for. Do you?
      - linksnapzz 5y ago
        At worst, it's a wash. At best... I'd have to have a better idea about what you mean by "liberty & democracy". For starters, it's not clear that the Taliban have less popular support than the ruling coalitions in many western governments.
klyrs 5y ago
I'd look to the Black Panther Party in the 1960s, and ask whether Americans have the same rights today as they did then. Couple of points I find interesting here. (1) As I understand it, open carry is illegal in California and Washington as a direct response to armed BPP demonstrations on capitol buildings. (2) Private enforcement like was carried out by the BPP was echoed in CHAZ/CHOP, and to put it mildly, I've never seen that celebrated by gun rights activists. (3) The BPP and police forces of the time were fairly well matched in their armament. Since then, the police are now paramilitary forces replete with military arms and armor. Are American gun rights activists deluding themselves, that they'd stand a chance if the police and military decided they were gonna run shit? Or are they merely comfortable in the knowledge that the police and military are politically aligned with them?
- handrous 5y ago
  I do think the history of the Black Panthers is one of the more likely veins to yield gold, in my search, and intend to do some reading there. I'm entirely serious that I could turn around on this position completely, if I found compelling evidence. > (3) Are American gun rights activists deluding themselves, that they'd stand a chance if the police and military decided they were gonna run shit? Or are they merely comfortable in the knowledge that the police and military are politically aligned with them? It's largely the latter, I think, which brings me to: Ultimately, I think the fatal flaw in the argument that private gun ownership is necessary to protect democracy, is in the fact that authoritarian turns by democracies tend to be fairly popular, when they happen, and that the pro-authoritarian citizens, whose position is likely, if not the majority, at least quite popular, will have guns, too... plus the police, and the army (if they don't have those, what's the problem? No private arms needed, authoritarian take-over is done before it can start if the police and the military aren't on its side, or at least damn close to being on its side). It's not just a lack of history of private firearms being an important pro-liberty and pro-democracy force in democratic states (so far as I can see! Again, I'd love examples)—it's that I have trouble imagining scenarios in which they likely would be, while remaining within the realm of the plausible. It's got to be some movement that's unpopular among the military and police, so they don't support it, but popular among enough of the rest of the populace that significant numbers would take up arms, and that almost none of them would be taking up arms in against liberty and democracy, rather than for them... and is that a remotely likely situation? I don't think it is. I think for practically the whole likely problem-space, if you will, private arms are one of 1) superfluous, 2) laughably insufficient, or 3) actively harmful to the very things they're allegedly there to preserve & protect.
quantumBerry 5y ago
1) Northern Syria (Rojava), during the latest Syrian Civil war. Local militias comprised of inhabitants of Kurdish northern Syria fought ISIS and other splintered forces to maintain the loose democratic confederacy that is Rojava. 2) Slightly worse example: Nationalistic unorganized militia in the Ukraine during the latest war in Crimea and Donbas. 3) US example? Battle of Athens (post WW-II) [1]. When I really start thinking about it, there are almost too many to name; especially if you count the times where there was an attempt but it failed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)